Skip to main content

Full text of "Valentine II Conference, February 25-27, 1983"

See other formats


f^EK'-^'^ ^ 




COH'^'VB^HC^ 



cfcSruarv 2^ ^2/, 



m 




^UUOTS^^^, WD^ 



FINAL REPORT 



STATE DIRECTORS OF FIRE SERVICE TRAINING 



VALENTINE II CONFERENCE 



EMMITSBURG, MD 



FEBRUARY 25 to 27, 1983 



An exchange of ideas, information and 
recommendations for working together 
between the State Directors of Fire 
Service Training and the National 
Fire Academy, Federal Emergency 
Management Agency. 



1. PURPOSE OF THE CONFERENCE 



The third in a series of formal meetings between the Directors of State 
Fire Training Programs and the National Fire Academy^ Federal Emergency 
Management Agency took place on the Emmitsburg campus of the National Fire 
Academy from February 25th through 27th, 1983. The first such meeting 
took place in Atlanta, Georgia from October 4th through 7th, 1976. The 
second meeting occurred at the National Fire Academy from February 15th 
through 17th, 1980, and was named the Valentine Conference. The 1983 
Conference was also held in February and it is being called "Valentine 11". 

The 1983 Conference, in addition to providing an open forum and interface 
with the leadership and staff of the National Fire Academy, was designed 
to address a number of specific issues on which the National Fire Academy 
was seeking input from the state level fire training agencies. 

Prior to the Conference, a task group of Directors of State Fire Training 
Programs met to address specifically how National Fire Academy curriculum 
offerings should relate to the National Professional Qualifications 
System for the fire service. The report of this task group was central to 
discussions, and is contained in the appendices. 

In order to assure maximum participation of all the attendees, the 
"nominal group technique" was used during the Conference. The nominal 
fjroup technique is a process which includes both individual and group 
^jdrticipation. The process is designed so that during group discussion, 
no one member has a dominant influence. When setting priorities or 
ddopting recommendations, the nominal group technique can significantly 
reduce many of the problems experienced with other group techniques by 
providing an equal opportunity for each niember to express his or her 
opinion throughout the Conference. 

Each topic was covered by three (3) separate workgroups. By having three 
(3) groups, with a total of some thirty (30) persons successively reviewing 
and building upon the work of others, each issue was thoroughly explored. 
The process was much like building a house. The first group considering 
a topic "established a foundation". The second group "filled in the 
framework" with more details and concerns. The third group "did the 
finish work" of refining the issues and making final recommendations for 
consideration by the full Conference. 

The International Society of Fire Service Instructors was assigned the 
primary responsibility for conducting the Conference with assistance by 
the National Fire Academy staff. 



P.l 



Participation in the Conference was restricted to the invited State 
Directors of Fire Training or their designees. Forty-eight (48) 
individuals representing State Fire Training Systems participated in 
the Conference. 



p. 2 



2. CONFERENCE OVERVIEW 



The Valentine II Conference officially was called to nrdpr at 8:00 a.m. 
on Friday, February 25th by Wayne Powell of the Field Program Division, 
who moderated an impressive and colorful opening ceremony. The colors 
were presented by the color guard of the Baltimore County (MD) Fire 
Department, followed by the National Anthem. 

Welcome to the campus and opening remarks were presented by The Honorable 
Fred J. Villella, Associate Director of Training and Education Programs 
for FEMA. His spirited and candid remarks were a most appropriate opening 
for what was to be a very intense Conference. 

Joseph L. Donovan, Superintendent of the National Fire Academy, provided 
the charge for the Conference. The charge had special meaning in that 
Superintendent Donovan was Director of the Massachusetts Firefighting 
Academy prior to his appointment as Superintendent of the National Fire 
Academy. 

Providing an overview of the Academy operations and activities were Gerry 
N. Bassett, Supervisor of the Materials Development Division; Anne Currier, 
Acting Deputy Superintendent of the Resident Program Division; and J. 
Faherty Casey, Deputy Superintendent of the Field Program Division. 

Following the morning break, all State Directors attended the Graduation 
Exercises of classes who were completing Academy courses. 

Following graduation came an irv-depth explanation of the Integrated 
Emergency Management System (lEMS). and a report of the pre-Conference 
task group on the National Professional Qualifications System. 

Concluding the morning session, Ed McCormack, Executive Director of 
ISFSI, provided a working explanation of the nominal group technique 
which would be used throughout the Conference. 

The nominal group technique workshops began at 1-00 p.m. on Friday. 
The participants were divided into five workgroups which addressed the 
following five topics: 

* Federal Emergency Management Agency's Training and 
Education Programs an^ State Fire Se;rvice Training 
Systems: Roles and Relationships 

* The National Professional Qualifications System: 
Impact on Course Development and Delivery 

* Resource Exchange: The Federal/State Relationship 

p. 3 



* The Integrated Emergency Management System: 
Implications of Cooperative Emergency Services 
Training 

* The National Fire Academy and State Training Systems: 
Strengthening the Partnership 

First session reports were made at 3:00 p.m., and the second round of 
discussions began at 3:30 p.m. Because of the intensity of the second 
round discussions, the second reports were rendered after dinner at 
7:30 p.m. 

At 8:30 p.m.. State Directors assembled with the Field Programs Coordi- 
nators in regional groups. 

Each group discussed: (1) Academy Field Course Delivery and State Fire 
Training Sponsorship - Issues/Procedures and (2) Education and Training 
Resource Exchange. 

First day activities concluded at 10:00 p.m. 

Saturday started with the third, and last nominal group technique 
workgroup's meeting at 8:30 a.m. Reports were made at 10:45 a.m., and 
the establishing of workgroup priorities was completed by noon. 

After lunch, results of the priority setting were presented to National 
Fire Academy Superintendent Joseph L. Donovan for consideration and 
response during the summary session on Sunday. 

Saturday afternoon, the State Directors toured National Fire Academy 
facilities, including the Fire Protection Systems Lab, Arson Investigations 
Lab and Micro-computer Lab. 

The final portion of Saturday afternoon was devoted to an open forum which 
was moderated by Lou Amabili. During this open forum, a resolution of 
support was passed by the assembled State Directors. 

The final session on Sunday brought an overview of the United States Fire 
Administration's programmatic efforts for FY-83 by Acting USFA Adminis- 
trator Ed Wall, and an explanation of the Academy support programs by 
Field Program Coordinators Wayne Powell, Ed Kapldin, John Turley, Doug 
Williams and Bruce Piringer. 

The Conference wrap-up, in the form of Academy responses to the Conference 
recommendations, was presented by Superintendent Joseph L. Donovan, The 
Honorable Fred Villella, and Deputy Superintendent J. Faherty Casey. 



p. 4 



3. WORKGROUP TOPICS 



The following five topics were pre-selected for discussion in the nominal 
group technique workshops: 

TOPIC I 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency's Training and Education Direc- 
torate and State Fire Training Systems: Roles and Relationships. 

a. What are the mutual objectives of State Fire Training Systems 
and FEMA Training and Education? 

b. What actions(s) can FEMA initiate to enhance the working 
relationship with State Fire Training Systems? 

c. What action(s) can states take to strengthen the partnership 
with FEMA Training and Education? 

d. What should be the programmatic priorities of FEMA, vis-a-vis 
the State Fire Training Systems? 

TOPIC II 

The National Professional Qualifications Systems (NPQS): Impact on 
Training Course Development and Delivery. 

a. Which professional areas and levels within the NPQS should be 
the primary responsibility of state systems for course develop- 
ment? 

b. Which professional areas and levels within the NPQS should be 
the primary responsibility for Academy course development? 

c. Which professional areas and levels should be priority for 
Academy development activity for the next thirty-six (36) months? 

*** TOPIC III 



Resource Exchange: The Federal/State Relationship. 

a. What information and resources need to be exchanged and at 
what frequency? 

b. How can information and resource needs be identified on an 
ongoing basis? 



p. 5 



c. Should alternative delivery methods be considered, and if so, 
what? 

d. What should be the respective roles of the states and NFA in 
Resource Exchange? 

TO PIC IV 

Implications of Cooperative Emergency Services Training. 

a. What types of training can State Fire Training Systems provide 
for emergency services managers? 

b. What types of training can State Training Systems provide to 
members of other (non-fire) emergency services? 

c. What should be the relationship of State Fire Training Systems 
to other state level Emergency Service Training Systems? 

d. What should be the role of State Fire Training Systems in 
providing comprehensive emergency management training. 

TOPIC V 

The National Fire Academy and State Fire Training Systems: Strengthening 
the Partnership. 

What are suggested state and national strategies for improving: 

a. The effectiveness of the NFA's Train-The-Trainer Program at 
the national, state and local levels. 

b. The Field Programs Division/State Fire Training System shared 
program activities. 

c. The Resident Programs Division's admissions policies and 
operations, vis-a-vis the State Fire Training Systems. 



p. 6 



CONFERENCE RECOMMENDATIONS 



As a result of the nominal group technique process, the following major 
issues and solutions were presented to the National Fire Academy by the 
State Directors of Fire Service Training: 



I . NATIONAL FIRE ACADEMY CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT 

ISSUE : 

As the National Fire Academy has developed a service-oriented, educa- 
tional institution responsive to the nation's fire service, the need 
for a plan to guide the development and delivery of the NFA Resident 
and Field Programs has become a reality. A clearly charted path is a 
necessary management tool, as well as an obligation to the constituency 
served. 

RECOMMENDATIONS : 

The National Professional Qualifications System has been developed by 
peer groups to provide objectives for professional development in the 
fire service. The NFA should use the NPQ system to chart the curriculum 
development for Resident and Field Programs. 

The National Fire Academy should develop courses or course components 
to meet the recommended minimum requirements for the following NPQ 
standards in the priority as listed: 



Fire Officer III 

Fire Inspector I 

Fire Inspector II 

Fire Instructor III 

Fire Officer IV 

Fire Inspector II 

Fire Prevention Education Officer III 

Fire Inspector III 

Fire Officer V 

Fire Investigator III 

Fire Officer VI 

Fire Instructor IV 

The National Fire Academy should identify the objectives of each NPQ 
standard that is achieved by successful completion of courses presently 
delivered by the Resident and Field Programs Division. 



II. NFA RESIDENT PROGRAM - ADMISSION POLICIES 

ISSUE : 

Although the National Fire Academy and the State Fire Training Systems 
are in partnership in many of the NFA roles and delivery systems, the 
State Fire Training Systems have no participation in the selection 
criteria or selection process for Resident Course admission. 

RECOMMENDATIONS : 

* State Fire Training Systems should be involved in developing 
student selection criteria for NFA courses. 

* Admission policies should be consistently applied to all applicants. 

* Course rosters should be provided to State Fire Training Directors 
for review before final selection. 

* State Fire Training Systems should be involved in developing student 
admission policies for NFA Resident Programs. (Regional quotas, 
big city versus small town, volunteer representation, no show, mul- 
tiple attendance, etc...). 

III. EVALUATION SYSTEM FOR NATIONAL PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS 

ISSUE: 

Validated written examinations and training for evaluators for 
practical (skill) examinations are not presently available at the 
national level for NPQS standards. 

RECOMMENDATIONS : 

* The NFA should develop a resource pool of validated examination 
questions with the potential to generate a variety of examinations 
for each level of each standard. 

* The NFA should develop, in cooperation with the State Fire Training 
Systems, a Train-The-Trainer course for evaluators. 

* The Professional Qualifications Board of the Joint Council of 
National Fire Service Organizations should assist in identifying 
the objectives for the Train-The-Trainer course. 

IV. COOPERATIVE EMERGENCY SERVICES TRAINING 

ISSUE: 



p. 8 



Cooperative emergency services training at the national, state and 
local levels presents significant problems, including role identifi- 
cation, communication, designation of responsibility and authority, 
understanding federal long- and short-term goals and establishing 
priorities . 

RECOMMENDATIONS : 

* Formal endorsement of each individual government entity chief 
executive (i.e., governor-state, mayor-city, board of commissioner 
county, etc. ), for the concept of cooperative emergency services 
training is a key to the success of the program. 

* Ad hoc committees to provide an avenue for communication should 

be established for cooperative emergency services training programs. 
Legislation to designate the responsibility and authority for co- 
operative emergency services training should be explored. 

* Federal support for cooperative emergency services training should 
be demonstrated by identifying the goals of Cooperative Emergency 
Services Training and establishing program priority objectives and 
timelines. 

NOTE: There was a hesitancy of State Fire Training Directors to commit 
to the issue of cooperative emergency services training. Approval 
of the concept wasn't an issue - yet, all approved the concept. 
State Fire Training Directors will continue to skirt the issue as 
long as FEMA, at the Federal level, seeks a commitment from State 
Fire Training Systems without the overt support of the concept 
from the state level Emergency Management Systems. The states must 
make cooperative emergency services training a success. The states 
must commit to the program. 



This is what was perceived 
as the issue of Cooperative 
Emergency Services Training 



Federal Emergency Management Agency 

National Fire Academy = State Emergency 

^ Management Agency 

> State Fire Training 

Services 4 ^ State Emergency 

Management Agency 



Yet Cooperative Emergency Services 
Training must function here 



V. STATE FIRE TRAINING DIRECTORS MEETING 



ISSUE; 



State Fire Training Directors do not have an opportunity to meet to- 
gether regularly as an entire group to discuss mutual needs and concerns 

p. 9 



Such meetings have agendas established by others with no time scheduled 
for State Fire Training Directors to have free interchange. 

RECOMMENDATION S: 

* The National Fire Academy should sponsor an annual meeting of State 
Fire Training Directors. For many, the ability to attend such a 
meeting is only possible through the National Fire Academy's pro- 
viding assistance and only nominal cost being incurred by the State 
Fire Training Systems. 

* The National Fire Academy should arrange regional meetings for State 
Fire Training Directors and the Metropolitan Fire Chiefs. 

* The National Fire Academy should conduct a needs assessment for such 
meetings to determine frequency and agenda topics. 

IV. NEW TECHNOLOGIES 

ISSUE : 

Available technologies are not being used to facilitate the exchange 
of information between the National Fire Academy and State Fire Training 
Systems or between State Fire Training Systems or as a delivery system 
for National Fire Academy programs. 

RECOMMENDATIONS : 

* The National Fire Academy should establish a computer linked group 
teleconference network for State Fire Training Syste^. This group 
should include specifications for the network system software and 
hardware for each State Fire Training System. 

* The National Fire Academy should establish a delivery system for 
Resident and Field Programs using video tape and up-link satellite 
del ivery. 

VII. COMMUNICATIONS 

ISSUE: 



Communication is the act of delivering from one to another, generally, 
something intangible such as news, opinions or facts. This delivery of 
news, opinions and facts from the National Fire Academy to the State 
Fire Training Directors and from Directors to the National Fire Academy 
and each other is a demanding issue. The preliminary solutions to 
several problems consistently revert to the need for increased, reg- 
ular, better and quicker communication. 



p. 10 



RECOMMENDATIONS : 

* The National Fire Academy should sponsor regular (annual is 
inferred) meetings with State Fire Training Directors with an 
agenda that is mutually arranged. 

* The National Fire Academy should provide a transcript system 
for students attending National Fire Academy Resident Courses. 
The information should be regularly issued to State Fire Training 
Directors for his/her own state. 

* The National Fire Academy should use the concept of a newsletter 
to promote an exchange of information between State Fire Training 
Directors and the National Fire Academy. 

* The National Fire Academy should expand the present communication 
networks, including the use of Field Program Division state rep- 
resentatives . 

NOTE: The use of new technologies will aid in the transfer of infor- 
mation as the demand escalates. 

VIII. THE RELATIONSHIP OF FEMA WITH STATE FIRE TRAINING SYSTEMS 

ISSUE: 

There is a void of understanding between the FEMA and its goals and 
the State Fire Training Systems. This lack of perception limits 
the ability of State Fire Training Systems to comprehend the role 
expectations of FEMA for both systems. The result is reluctant 
State Fire Training Systems interacting directly with FEMA in areas 
where FEMA may need the assistance of the state system to deliver 
training (i.e., cooperative emergency services training). 

RECOMMENDATIONS : 

* FEMA should provide a means of communication to and from the State 
Fire Training Systems. This communication could include regional 
FEMA seminars and exchange of mailing lists. This was in the reso- 
lution list and was agreed upon. 

* The FEMA and State Fire Training Systems relationship should focus 
on the National Fire Academy and State Fire Training Systems' re- 
lationship and not vice-versa. This chain of command should be 
clearly re-established and utilized. 

* FEMA should provide contracts with State Fire Training Systems to 

p. 11 



include guidelines, policies and resources if State Fire Training 
Systems are, in fact, a necessary delivery system for FEMA training 
programs. 

IX. ADJUNCT FACULTY 

ISSUE : 

The adjunct faculty selection process does not demonstrate professional 
expertise and instructional ability, 

RECOMMENDATIONS: 



* The National Fire Academy should involve State Fire Training Di- 
rectors in establishing the selection process for adjunct faculty 
applicants. 

* The National Fire Academy should use the assistance of State Fire 
Training Directors in screening adjunct faculty applicants. 

* The National Fire Academy should eliminate the bidding process in 
determining instructors for NFA courses. 

* The National Fire Academy should provide timely notification of ad- 
junct faculty selection to State Fire Training Directors for each 
Field Program delivery. 

* The National Fire Academy should honor the rejection by a State Fire 
Training Director of any adjunct faculty for a Field Program delivery. 

TRAIN THE TRAINER 

ISSUE: 

The Train-The-Trainer concept is the backbone of the NFA delivery system 
to the majority of the nation's fire service and also serves as the pro- 
gram with the greatest potential to provide assistance to State Fire 
Training Systems. The yet unrealized potential of the Train-The-Trainer 
program must be a primary goal for the NFA. The State Fire Training 
Systems may require greater support from the NFA to achieve the full 
potential of the Train-The-Trainer concept. 

RECOMMENDATIONS: 



The National Fire Academy should assist the State Fire Training 
Systems in developing the resources necessary to deliver the Train- 
The-Trainer programs to the end user. Recommendations include: 

1. National Fire Academy provide student manuals in quantity. 

2. National Fire Academy provide actual dollars for instructor's 
wage and travel . 

3. National Fire Academy provide assistance in the training and 
professional development of state fire training instructors. 



P 12 



(Alternatives are to charge fees at the state level and/or to reallocate 
state resources). 

* The National Fire Academy should involve State Fire Training Di- 
rectors in the long range planning of Train-The-Trainer courses 
scheduled for development and hand-off. 

* The National Fire Academy should involve the State Fire Training 
Systems in the curriculum design and development of Train-The-Trainer 
Courses . 

* The National Fire Academy should conduct the Train-The-Trainer hand- 
off courses at the regional and state level . 

* The National Fire Academy should explore the use of video tape and 
teleconferencing for the delivering of classes to the end user. 

XI. RESOURCE NETWORK 

ISSUE: 

Information is becoming a greater commodity. The National Fire Academy 
has the role of providing a clearing house for all information generated 
and demanded by the fire service community. This information is exhibited 
in many forms. Books, reports, lesson guides, audio visual materials, 
surveys, names of experts, recommended sources, course curriculums and an 
unending list are all resources that can be classified as information. 

RECOMMENDATION : 

* The National Fire Academy should establish a resource network to 
gather and disseminate fire service training information. The network 
should include, but not be limited to, materials produced by National 
Fire Academy Resident Course participants as class projects (i.e.. 
Educational Methodology III research papers), curriculums developed 

by state training systems and NFA audio visuals. 

XIII. NFA RESIDENT COURSE MATERIALS 

ISSUE : 

The course curriculum, teaching aids and student materials for the NFA 
Resident Courses have not been accessible for State Fire Training Systems. 

RECOMMENDATIONS : 

* The National Fire Academy should develop courses in modules for ease 
of delivery of "pieces" of courses by State Fire Training Systems. 

* The National Fire Academy should establish a system for State Fire 
Training Systems to access the instructional packages for Resident 
Courses. This may include special requests or special needs. 



p. 13 



5 . RESOLUTION OF SUPPO RT 

America continues to burn. Annually, the material fire loss in the United 
States is measured in billions of dollars. Even more tragic is the annual 
loss, due to fire, of 8,000 Americans - men, women and children. Countless 
others will spend days, weeks, months and even years in pain and suffering 
as they recuperate from burns. The magnitude of these losses clearly in- 
dicates that unfriendly fires in America are the cause of a major social and 
economic problem. 

WHEREAS: 

The Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), The 
Honorable Louis 0. Giuffrida, is working diligently to improve this 
nation's emergency preparedness capabilities; 

WHEREAS: 

The Associate Director of FEMA Training, Education and Fire Programs, 
The Honorable Fred J. Villella, is working diligently to promote the 
community emergency response team concept and to build a cohesive, 
multi-agency, emergency management approach; 

WHEREAS: 

The Superintendent of the National Fire Academy, Joseph L. Donovan, is 
working diligently to advance the professional development and compe- 
tency of the fire and rescue service, as well as other professionals 
engaged in fire prevention, protection and control activities; 

WHEREAS: 

The Academy is the national focal point for excellence in fire preven- 
tion and control training and through its Resident Programs provides 
volunteer and career fire service professionals access to significant 
advances in technological and management areas and also provides training 
to individuals in allied professions -- code enforcement, architects, 
city managers and administrators, and planners; 

WHEREAS: 

The National Fire Academy, through its Field Programs, has developed an 
effective program linkage with established systems which exist at the state 
and local levels and in doing so supports and strengthens these systems; 

WHEREAS: 

This nation's fire problem is being addressed, attacked and reduced 
through the combined efforts of national and local fire agencies; then 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 

That the following State Directors of Fire Training go on record as 
supporting the efforts of FEMA in its efforts to reduce the costly loss 
of property, the needless suffering of burn victims and the tragic loss 
of life caused by unfriendly fires; 

p. 14 



AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 

The undersigned respectively request the Congress of this country to 
provide the necessary support to FEMA - USFA and the National Fire 
Academy as they work to forge an effective partnership that unitedly 
compliments and implements common goals that reduce the fire proulem. 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 

We solicit members of the Congress to: 

1. Appropriate funding and personnel adequate to achieve these common 
goals. 

2. Instruct and cooperate with the Office of Management and Budget in ttie 
budget process to insure that adequate funding and personnel are 
provided to achieve common goals. 



umE 




STATE 



j^y Jyi^TZ^^ '^lO? ' 






M. 



r" / 




NAME 



■ /jL,..,ju9.^M^ 



X^ -.^.zX <^,- 



X^Z-'^ / 



/ 



■:jf:^K 









STATE 



J^-_ 



Jdh:nA2LLzIlr^ ^ 



Cy<^i/Sii<^^jx^. \\ P\ 




c-^ 






Cy 



p. 15 






v/.v 






-• /' 



NAME 



STAl 



nam: 



STAT 




/T' 









CL^^ 



/» /_,' 










c: 









C Ml 



MAf, 






Adoptee the 27th day of February, 1983, by the State Directors 
of Fire Traimng. 



p. 16 



APPENDICES 



A-1 Pre-Conference Task Group Report 

A-2 Conference Agenda 

A-3 Conference Participants 

A-4 Workgroup Process 

A-5 Conference Priorities 



A-1 Pre-Conference Tdsk Group Keport 

NATIONAL EMERGENCY TRAINING CENTER 
NATIONAL FIRE ACADEMY 
NATIONAL PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS SYSTEM 

February 23-24, 1933 
Emmitsburg, Maryland 



The campus of the National Fire Academy in Emmitsburg, Maryland was the setting cf 
an intense, two-day meeting of ten (10) Directors of State Fire Programs on Feb- 
ruary 23rd and 24th, 1983. Those assembled constituted a Task Force organized by 
the National Fire Academy to provide advice and counsel in the area of program 
developnien f. priorities for the r.oxt thirty-six (36) to sixty (60) months. 

Members of the Tasic Force included: 

John Ayers 

New Hampshire Fire Standar'^s and Training Commission 

Representing Barry Bush 

Gordon Evans, Director 
State Fire Service Traininn 
Utah Technical College at Prove 

Thomas Hebert, Department Head 
LSU Fireman Training Program 
Louisiana State University 

John W. Hoglund, Director 
Maryland Fire & Rescue Institute 
University of Maryland 

Joseph N. McDonaqh, Director 
South Carolina Fire Academy 

Keith Royer, Supervisor 
Iowa State University 

- Wayne Sandfcrd, Director 
Fire Training and Education 
Connecticut Commission on Fire Prevention and Control 

Fred C. ", tark , Bureau Cfiief 
riorida Fire Standrirds .ind Training 

A-1.1 



Dave Stephan, Director 

Oregon Fire Standards and Accreditation Board 

- Nancy Trench, Supervisor 
Fire Service Training 
Oklahoma State University 

Edward H. McCormack, Jr., Executive Director of the International Society of Fire 
Service Instructors, was appointed as Facilitator for the two-day session, 
and Martin Grimes, Vice President of NFPA and Secretary to the National Profes- 
sional Qualifications Board was the Task Force Advisor. 

The National Fire Academy has supported the professional standards series - so 
it was no surprise that the two days of analysis were centered around the National 
Professional Qualification Standards 1001, 1002, 1003, 1021, 1031, and 1041. 

Academy Superintendent Joe Donovan welcomed the Task Force on Wednesday morning 
and Jim Casey, Deputy Superintendent for Field Programs, del ivered the charge to 
the Task Force to develop responses to the following statements: 

- Should the National Professional Qualifications System (NPQS) 
be used to chart Academy curriculum development objectives? 

If not, what should be used? 

If NPQS is recommended: 

* Identify professional areas and levels within the NPQS 
that should be the primary responsibility of state 
systems for course development; 

* Identify professional areas and levels within the NPQS 

that should be the primary responsibility for Academy course 
development; 

* Identify the professional areas and levels which should be 
priority for Academy development activity for the next thirty-six 
(35) months. 

* Within the priority areas, identify sub-elements that should 
be addressed. 

To provide current information on programs and certification activities, each at- 
tendee was asked to explain current policies and practices to his or her state. 



A-1. 2 



Martin Grimes, Secretary of the National Professional Qualifications Board, pre- 
sented the attendees with a comprehensive review of how the system was estab- 
lished, how the standards were developed, and how the actual certification process 
was established. He explained the five (5) year cycle of review that a standard 
must undergo. Martin also mentioned that some consideration will need to be given 
in the future to having the system apply to other than uniformed fire service 
personnel . 

With copies of 1001, 1002, 1003, 1021, 1031, and 1041 Standards and a flow chart 
of the National Professional Qualifications System, work began in earnest. 

IN RESPONSE TO THE FIRST QUESTION RAISED IN THE OFFICIAL CHARGE IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY 
STATED THAT THE NPQ SYSTEM HAS BEEN DEVELOPED BY PEER GROUPS TO PROVIDE OBJECTIVES 
FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE FIRE SERVICE. THE TASK FORCE UNANIMOUSLY 
R ECOMMENDS THAT THE NPQ SYSTEM SHOULD BE USED TO CHART THE NATIONAL FIRE ACADEMY 
CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES . 

IT THUS FOLLOWS THAT THE NFA SHOULD, FOR FIRE SERVICE PERSONNEL, MAKE ITS RESIDENT 
AND FIELD PROGRAMS COMPATIBLE WITH WHAT IS NOW BEING EXTENSIVELY USED AT THE STATE 
AND LOCAL LEVEL. 

The next question "If not, what should be used" became moot at this time. However, 
the Task Force deleted the "if not" and responded as follows: 

WHERE OTHER DISCIPLINES AND RELATED PROFESSIONALS NEED COURSES FROM THE NFA ON 
FIRE RELATED SUBJECTS, THESE NEED NOT PARALLEI THE NPQ SYSTEM BUT SHOULD NOT CON- 
FLICT WITH ITS DOCTRINES AND FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES. 

The next question to be addressed was "What programs should State Fire Training 
and Education Systems have primary development responsibility for". Discussion 
soon revealed that this question was directly inter-related to the next question 
which was "What programs should the NFA have primary development responsibility 
for", so both questions were actually addressed simultaneously. 

If the human, financial, technical and material resources were equal in all states, 
a clean and decisive needs assessment and resultant recommendations for dealing 
with all states could be established. However, with the diversity of available 
resources and operations that existed within the states of the ten (10) task group 
representatives, it was vividly evident that each of the fifty (50) states has 
separate and identifiable needs and is looking for the NFA to fulfill vastly dif- 
fering materials and resource voids. 

Clari fication, as a result of the discussion, once again focused on the charge to 
identify which programs State Fire Training and Education Systems should be re- 
sponsible for developing, as well as those which should be developed by the National 
Fire Academy. 



A-1. 3 



THUS, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT STATE FIRE 
TRAINING AND EDUCATION SYSTEMS SHOULD HAVE 
PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR COURSE DEVELOP- 
MENT FOR THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS AND LEVELS: 

FIREFIGHTER I 

FIREFIGHTER II 

FIREFIGHTER III 

FIRE APPARATUS DRIVER/OPERATOR 

AIRPORT FIREFIGHTER 

However, the National Fire Academy should make available curriculum packages 
for the previously listed standards to aid local and state entities that need 
assistance in implementing these programs. These packages need not be dev- 
eloped in-house by the National Fire Academy. 

The Task Force recommends that the NFA should use as resources those packages 
already developed and implemented in various states. The Task Force further 
recommends that the priority for making these packages available be: 

1. Firefighter III 

2. Firefighter II 

3. Fire Apparatus Driver/Operator 

4. Airport Firefighter 

State Fire Training and Education Systems, as well as state institutions of 
higher learning should have primary development responsibility for the 
following standards and levels: 

1. Fire Instructor I 

2. Fire Instructor II 

3. Fire Officer I 

4. Fire Officer II 

5. Fire Prevention Education Officer II 

To fulfill the needs of the above standards, the National Fire Academy 
should correlate and refine existing courses in these areas for general 
availability. 



A-1.4 



Full use should likewise be made of courses already developed by the 
National Fire Academy for these standards and levels. 

It can therefore best be visualized that program development for those 
standards below the solid line on the attached chart is the primary respon- 
sibility of State Fire Training and Education Systems, while those above the 
line are the primary responsibility of the National Fire Academy. 

The National Fire Academy, through its Resident and Field Program divisions, 
should have primary responsibility for development of areas and levels of 
the professional standards as follows: 

Fire Officer III 

Fire Officer IV 

Fire Officer V 

Fire Officer VI 

Fire Instructor III 

Fire Instructor IV 

Fire Prevention Education Officer III 

Fire Inspector I 

Fire Inspector II 

Fire Inspector III 

Fire Investigator II 

Fire Investigator III 

At this point it was necessary to implement an individual voting system to 
first establish individual priorities and eventually group consensus. Each 
attendee was allocated 100 points to distribute in increments of ten (10). 

Thus, the Task Force recommends the development of courses or course com- 
ponents to meet the recommended minimum requirements for the following 
standards in the following priority: 

STANDARD POINTS 

Fire Officer III 250 

Fire Inspector I 240 

Fire Inspector II 140 

Fire Instructor III 80 

Fire Officer IV 70 

Fire Inspector II 60 



A-1.5 



STANDARD POINTS 

Fire Prevention Education Officer III 60 

Fire Inspector III 20 

Fire Officer V 20 

Fire Investigator III 10 

Fire Officer VI 10 

Fire Instructor IV 

It is understood that NFA course development will impact on both Resident 
and Field Program courses. The Task Force does not consider that courses 
for such standards need be complete for one level only, and the possibility 
of serving, in part, other levels should not be ruled out. 

In addition, essential course and/or student prerequisites should be 
identified for successful student participation. Where the analysis 
indicates a total absence of adequate prerequisite courses, the NFA should 
explore means of filling such omissions. 

In furthering the charge it was necessary to examine the components of the 
fire officer priority standards. 

OFFICER III POINTS 

Water Supply Systems Analysis and Fire 200 
Protection 

Fire Protection Administration 180 

Major Emergency Planning 170 

Fire Protection Systems and Alarm 140 

Systems 

Personnel Management 140 

Public Relations 60 

General Physics 30 

Public Speaking 20 

English 10 

Sociology 10 



A-1.6 



In the discussion that preceded voting on Fire Inspector I, four (4) of 
the ten CIO) participants felt the entire course needed to be developed 
as a package or portions of the course in an order acceptable to the 
program developers to the NFA. The four (.4) were allowed to cast their 
entire block of 100 voted for development of the entire program at once. 

Votes of the remaining six (6) participants is as follows: 

FIRE INSPECTOR I POINTS 

Development of Entire Program 400 

Safety to Life 110 

Fire Protection Equipment 90 

Fire Cause Determination 70 

Heating and Cooking Equipment 60 

Principles of Electricity 60 

General Fire Safety 40 

Code Enforcement Procedures 40 

Other Hazardous Materials 40 

Flammable and Combustible Liquids 30 

Compressed and Liquefied Gases 20 

Explosives, Including Fireworks 10 

INVESTIGATOR II 

Legal 210 

Fire Scene Examination 200 

Evidence Collection 140 

General 110 

Records, Reports and Documents 90 

Other Agencies 80 



A. 1-7 



INVESTIGATOR II (cont) 



POINTS 



Courtroom 80 

Photography 50 
Candidate Requirements 

INSTRUCTOR III 

Evaluation 350 

Development of Materials 285 

Occupational Analysis 215 

Training Records and Reports 125 
General 50 

FIRE OFFICER IV 

Organization and Management 290 

Public Finance - Budgeting 290 

Public Relations 160 

Safety Practices 110 
Industrial Fire Protection 90 

Fire Suppression and Detection Systems 50 

The top five C5) priority areas within each of the identified priority 
standards were at this point listed and numbered. 

The participants were then given the assignment of selecting the ten (10) 
which would be of greatest value to their state program. Once the ten (10) 

were selected, each participant was given 100 additional points to spend in 
increments of ten (10). 

A-1.8 



The Task Force priorities established in this final cut are as follows: 

POINTS 

Fire Protection Administration (,F0 III) 130 

Personnel Management (FO III) 80 

Public Finance - Budgeting (FO IV) 80 

Water Supply Systems Analysis and Fire 75 

Protection Hydraulics (FO III) 

Safety to Life (INSP. I) 70 

Organization and Management (FO IV) 70 

It should be noted that none of the elements of Fire Investigator II or 
III were included in the final refinement. 

While there were several points which surfaced during the discussion per- 
iods which require amplification, the need for an immediate analysis of 
which National Professional Qualification Standards all USFA courses meet, 
is urgently needed. State certification agencies need this information to 
evaluate which levels of proficiency students who have attended NFA courses 
are eligible to be certified. 

Such an analysis would also allow State Fire Training and Education Systems 
to determine what course materials are available at the National Fire Academy 
for use by them in developing programs to meet the professional standards. 

The Task Force statement on this issue is as follows: 

It is important at this time to realign the courses currently 
delivered by the Resident and Field Programs of the National 
Fire Academy to clearly identify the minimum objectives of each 
standard National Professional Qualification System that is 
achieved with successful completion of each NFA course. The 
NPQS Task Force recommends that the National Fire Academy utilize 
the Pro Board and/or other expertise to accomplish this task. 

The analysis process of which program materials meet which standards should 

be extended to include all programs of all state agencies, institutions of 

higher education offering fire or fire-related courses and the current and 
future offerings of the Open University System. 

Task Force members throughout the two-day process recognized the need for a 
greater involvement and commitment contribution on the part of the state 
training agencies in order to build a totally effective national system. 

A-1.9 



- 






•— ' 




>— ' 


> 




> 
2: 




•— < 




•— ' 


IxJ 




LU 


oc 




q: 


^~~^ 




i_^ 


U. 




Ll_ 


■—J 




'-I 


H 






A-i.lO 



A-2 AGENDA 

NATIONAL EMERGENCY TRAINING CENTER 

NATIONAL FIRE ACADEMY 

VALENTINE II CONrERENCE 
EMMITSBURG, MARYLAND 
FEBRUARY 25-27, 1983 



Location 



8:00 a.m. CONFERENCE CONVENES J Building 

Wayne Powell, Moderator Auditorium 

OPENING ADDRESS 

The Honorable Fred J. Vi 11 ell a 
Associate Director 
Training and Fire Programs 

Superintendent Joseph L. Donovan 
National Fire Academy 

ACADEMY OVERVIEW 

Materials Development Division 
Gerry N. Bassett, Supervisor 

Resident Programs Division 

Anne Cui^rier, Acting Deputy Superintendent 

Field Programs Division 

J. Faherty Casey, Deputy Superintendent 

9:45 a.m. BREAK J 120 

10:00 ,^.m. ACADEMY GRADUATION CEREMONIES Auditorium 

INTEGRATED EMERGENCY 

MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 
Speaker: Lee Thomas 
Executive Deputy Director, FEMA 

A-2.1 



Friday Location 

NATIONAL PROFESSIONAL 
QUALIFICATIONS SYSTEM 

OVERVIEW: NOMINAL GROUP PROCESS 

Edward H. McCormack, Jr., Executive Director 
International Society of Fire Service Instructors 

CONFERENCE PHOTOGRAPH H Building Steps 

12 Noon LUNCH Dining Hall 

1:00 p.m. NOMINAL GROUP PROCESS J Building 

First Session Assigned Rooms 

TOPICS 

Federal Emergency Management Agency Resource Exchange: Federal /State 

Training and Education and State Relationship 

Fire Service Training System: Roles 

and Relationship Integrated Emergency Management 

Systems: Implications of Cooperative 
National Professional Qualifications Emergency Services Training 
System: Impact on Course Development 
and Delivery 

The National Fire Academy and State Training 
Systems: Strengthening the Partnership 

3:00 p.m. FIRST SESSION REPORTS Auditorium 

3:15 p.n. BREAK Foyer 

3:30 p.m. NOMINAL GROUP PROCESS J Building 

Second Session Assigned Rooms 

5:00 p.m. SECOND SESSION REPORTS Auditorium 

6:00 p.m. DINNER Dining Hall 

7:30 p.m. REGIONAL DISCUSSION GROUPS 

TOPICS 

Academy Field Course Delivery and Education and Training Resource 

State Fire Training Sponsorship - Exchange 

Issues/Procedures 

Open Discussion 

A-2.2 



J 


103 


J 


111 


J 


105 


J 


101 


J 


107 



Region Field Program Coordinator Discussion Room 

I, II, III Douglas R. Williams 

IV, V John D. Turley 

VI, VII Bruce Piringer 

VIII Edward J. Kaplan 

IX, X R. Wayne Powell 

Saturday 

8:30 a.m. NOMINAL GROUP PROCESS CONTINUES J Building 

Third Session Assigned Rooms 

THIRD SESSION REPORTS Auditorium 

10:00 a.m. BREAK Foyer 

11:45 a.m. LUNCH Dining Hall 

12:45 p.m. TOUR OF NFA EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES 

Fire Protection Systems Lab 
Arson Investigation Lab 
Microcomputer Lab 

1:45 p.m. STATE DIRECTORS' OPEN FORUM Auditorium 

Director Louis Amabili (DE) 
Moderator 

2:45 p.m. BREAK Foyer 

3:00 p.m. DIRECTORS' OPEN FORUM (cont.) 

United States Fire Administration 
Ed Wall, Chairman, USFA 

6:00 p.m. RECEPTION AND DINNER Dining Hall 

Sunday 

9:00 a.m. ACADEMY SUPPORT PROGRAMS: J Building 

AN OPPORTUNITY Auditorium 

Wayne Powell John Turley 
Ed Kaplan Doug Williams 
Bruce Piringer 

ACADEMY RESPONSE TO CONFERENCE 
RECOMMENDATIONS 

12:00 noon LUNCH Dining Hall 

A. 2-3 



A- 3 



VALENTINE II CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS 



ALABAMA - 



Mr. Robert Hagler, Director 
Alabama State Fire College 
Shelton State Community College 
2015 McFarland Avenue East 
Tuscaloosa, AL 35405 



ALASKA 



Mr, William Hagevig, Supervisor 
Fire Service Training 
Adult & Continuing Education 
Pouch F, State Office Building 
Juneau, AK 99811 



ARIZONA 



Mr. Herb Hoey 
Director of Fire Training 
Division of Emergency Services 
5636 East McDowell Road 
Phoenix, AZ 85008 



ARKANSAS - 
CALIFORNIA - 



Absent 



Mr. Edward Bent 

Fire Service Training & Education 
7171 Bowling Drive, Suite 500 
Sacramento, CA 95823 



COLORADO 



Mr. Joe Lewand, Manager 
Fire Service Training 
12600 West 6th Avenue 
Golden, CO 80401 



CONNECTICUT - 



Mr. Wayne E. Sandford, Director 

Fire Training and Education 

Commission on Fire Prevention and Control 

294 Colony Street 

Meriden, CT 06450 



DELAWARE 



Mr. Louis J. Amabili, Director 
Delaware State Fire School 
RD #2, Box 156 
Dover, DE 19901 



A-3.1 



FLORIDA - Mr. Fred C. Stark, Bureau Chief 

Fire Standards and Training 
1501 South West Broadway 
Oca! a, FL 32670 



GEORGIA - Mr. Harold G. Thompson, Superintendent 

Georgia Fire Academy 
1112 Clay Street 
Marietta, GA 30050 



HAWAII - Battalion Chief Abel Fraga 

Honolulu Fire Department 
1455 South Beretania Street, Room 313 
Honolulu, HI 96814 



IDAHO - Mr. Tom Tyree, Director 

Fire Service Training 
C.S.I . Vo-Tech Center 
P.O. Box 1238 
Twin Falls, ID 83301 



ILLINOIS - Mr. Gerald Monigold, Director 

Fire Service Institute 
University of Illinois 
301 South Wright Street 
Champaign, IL 61820 



INDIANA - L. Norman Crocker 

502 State Office Building 
100 North Senate Street 
Indianapolis, IN 46204 



IOWA - Mr. Keith Royer, Supervisor 

Fire Service Extension 
Iowa State University 
Ames, lA 50011 



KANSAS - Mr. Glen Boughton 

Fire Service Training 
Division of Continuing Education 
University of Kansas 
645 New Hampshire Avenue 
Lawrence, KS 60045 



A-3.2 



KENTUCKY - 



Mr. Charles Shaw 
Public Service Occupations Unit 
Kentucky Department of Education 
21st Floor, Capital Plaza Tower 
Frankfort, KY 40601 



LOUISIANA - 



Mr. Thomas Hebert, Department Head 
LSU Fireman Training Program 
Pleasant Hall 

Louisiana State University 
Baton Rouge, LA 70803 



MAINE - 



Mr. Stephen D. Willis, Consultant 

Fire Service Training 

Bureau of Vocational Education 

Department of Education and Cultural Service; 

Station #23 

Augusta, ME 04330 



MARYLAND - 



Mr. John W. Hoglund, Director 
Maryland Fire & Rescue Institute 
Fire Service Building 
University of Maryland 
College Park, MD 20742 



MASSACHUSETTS 



Mr. Paul Anderson 

Massachusetts Firefighting Academy 

59 Horse Pond Road 

Sudbury, MA 01776 



MICHIGAN 



Mr. Phillip Alber, Executive Secretary 
Michigan Firefighter's "^raining Council 
7150 Harris Drive 
Lansing, MI 43913 



MINNESOTA 



Ms. Sharon Grossbach, Manager 
Adult Vocational Section 
Minnesota Department of Education 
529 Capitol Square Building 
550 Cedar Street 
St. Paul , MN 55101 



MISSISSIPPI - 



A-3.3 



Mr. Bill Warren 
Mississippi Fire Academy 
Route 10, Box 295 
Jackson, MS 3920S 



MISSOURI - 



Mr. Bill Westhoff, Jr., Director 
Missouri Fire & Rescue Training Institute 
1001 Ashland Gravel Road 
Columbia, MO 65201 



MONTANA 



Mr. Sheldon Weedon, Director 
Montana Fire Services Training School 
2100 16th Avenue South 
Great Falls, MT 59405 



NEBRASKA - 



Mr. Wayne McLaughlin, Director 
Nebraska Fire Service 
3721 West Cuming 
Lincoln, NE 68524-1896 



NEVADA - 



Mr. Larry Stevens, Deputy State Fire Marshal 
Fire Service Training Section 
State Fire Marshal Division 
Capitol Complex 
Carson City, NV 89710 



NEW HAMPSHIRE 



Mr. John Ayers , Instructor 

New Hampshire Fire Standards and 

Training Commission 
18 Low Avenue 
Concord, NH 03301 



NEW JERSEY - 



Mr. August Brummer, Director 
New Jersey State Fire College 
New Jersey State Safety Council 
50 Park Place, Suite 820 
Newark, NJ 07102 



NEW MEXICO - 



Mr. Bob Baca 

New Mexico State Fire Marshal's Office 

P.O. Drawer 1269 

Santa Fe, NM 87501 



NEW YORK - 



Mr. Renzy Hanshaw 

Office of Fire Prevention and Control 

New York State Department of Fire 

162 Washington Avenue 

Albany, NY 12231 



A-3.4 



NORTH CAROLINA - Mr. Ken Farmer, Executive Director 

North Carolina Fire Commission 
115 West Jones Street 
P.O. Box 27687 
Raleigh, NC 27637 



NORTH DAKOTA - Mr. Donald Gilman, Executive Secretary 

North Dakota Fireman's Association 
176 First Avenue, North East 
Beach, ND 58521 



OHIO - Mr. A. Gregory Drew, Superintendent 

Ohio Fire Academy 

Ohio Division of State Fire Marshal 
8895 East Main Street 
Reynoldsburg, OH 43068 



OKLAHOMA - Ms. Nancy Trench, Supervisor 

Fire Service Training 
Fire Bui 1 ding 
Oklahoma State University 
Stillwater, OK 74078 



OREGON - Mr. Dave Stephan, Director 

Fire Standards and Accreditation Board 
3000 Market Street, North East, Suite 258 
Salem, OR 97310 



PENNSYLVANIA - Mr. Robert C. Grening, Administrator 

Pennsylvania State Fire School 
Office of Fire Safety Services 
Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency 
P.O. Box 631 
Lewistown, PA 17044 



RHODE ISLAND - Mr. Ronald S. Jones, Coordinator 

Fire Science & Fire Service Training 
Community College of Rhode Island 
25 Althea Drive 
Cranston, RI 02920 



SOUTH CAROLINA - Mr. Joseph McDonagh, Director 

South Carolina Fire Academy 
[ 1 1 inui'. Avenue 
West Columbia, SC 21969 

A-3.5 



SOUTH DAKOTA 



Mr. Thomas Sanborn, Coordinator 
Fire Service Training 
118 West Capitol 
Pierre, SD 57501-2080 



TENNESSEE - 



Mr. Wallace Burke, Superintendent 
Tennessee State Fire School 
1303 Old Fort Parkway 
Murfreesboro, TN 37130 



TEXAS - 



Mr. Charles Paqe 

Fire Protection Training 

Texas Engineering Extension Service 

Texas A & M University 

FE Drawer K 

College Station, TX 77843 



UTAH - 



Mr. Gordon D. Evans, Director 
State Fire Service Training 
Utah Technical College at Provo 
P.O. Box 1609 
Provo, UT 84601 



VERMONT - 



Mr. Bruce McClure 

Fire Service Training Program 

Box 53 

Pittsford, VT 05763 



VIRGINIA 



Mr. Joe Thomas 

Department of Fire Programs 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

2720 Enterprise Parkway, Suite 106 

Richmond, VA 23229 



WASHINGTON 



Mr. Edward Prendergast, Director 

Fire Service Training 

Commission for Vocational Education 

Airdustrial Park 

Building 17, Mail Stop LS-10 

Olympia, WA 98504 



A-3.6 



WEST VIRGINIA - Mr. Everett Perkins, Program Leader 

Fire Service Extension 
West Virginia University 
313 Knapp Hal 1 
Morgantown, WV 25506 



WISCONSIN - Mr. Robert Sklander 

2614 East Grange 
Cuddhy, WI 53110 



WYOMING - Absent 



A-3.7 



A-4 WORKGROUP PROCESS 



The Nominal Group Technique C^GT) is a structured group meeting process 
which provides assistance in overcoming commonly encountered barriers oc- 
curring whenever groups face the task of defining problems and exploring 
solutions. 

The NGT overcomes a number of critical problems typical of interactive 
groups, provides increased attention to each idea, and increased opportunity 
for each individual to assure that his or her ideas are part of the group's 
frame of reference. 

The four steps of the nominal (silent and independent) generation of ideas, 
the round robin listing, serial discussion, and independent voting all in- 
crease individual participation. 

Preparations for the NGT include: 

* Individual assignments of participants to a specific workgroup for 
each of the three sessions. No changing of groups is permitted. 

* Problem statements and thought activities to stimulate the thinking 
process . 

* Voting sheets to be used in summarizing and prioritizing your 
individual and group recommendations. 

A Facilitator is assigned to each workgroup. The Facilitator stays with the 

assigned topic for all three sessions. The Facilitator is there to keep the 

session moving, which is the only way closure can be reached in the minimum 

amount of time allocated for the process. 

Idea Development 

The first step in the process is independent generation of ideas. Each 
participant will have ten (10) minutes to review the assigned topic. 
During this quiet time, each individual prepares a card (provided for that 
purpose) with any problems or ideas he or she would like considered by the 
workgroup. 

Example: How to fairly distribute training materials to all 
departraent^in the state 

- or- (use new card) 

How can we secure increased funds for training 

- or - (use new card) 

How can the quality of instructors be improved 



A-4.1 



Round Robin Problem Statements 

The second step of NGT is to record the problems or ideas identified by the 
group members on a flip chart visible to the entire group. 

The Facilitator will ask each participant for a problem or idea. This will 
continue until each participant has had a chance to transmit each problem 
or idea that he or she has written down. 

Another period of quiet time, then (10) ten minutes, will be held. During 
this period, solutions to the problems or ideas listed on a separate card will 
be prepared by participants. 

Round Robin Solution Statement 

The Facilitator will once again go around the table and have each partici- 
pant offer a solution until all solutions are offered. 

THE PRODUCT OF THE FIRST PHASE IS A LIST OF PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS - 

Serial Discussion for Clarification 

Discussion of problems and solutions. During the first workgroup, a 

broad range of concerns for all identified problems are developed. In this 

first session, a foundation for the subsequent groups is prepared. 

Clarification, modification and refinement take place at this point. 

Preliminary Vote 

The average NGT workgroup will generate over 25 items in the problem solution 
phase. Through serial discussion group members will come to understand the 
meaning of the items, the logic behind the items and arguments for and against 
the importance of individual items. The Facilitator will number each item. 

Each member of the group will be asked to select from the entire list the 
five (5) items of most importance to them, their priority item. Each mem- 
ber of the group will then be given 100 points to allocate in increments of 
ten (10) as they see fit. The Facilitator will tally the vote with the five 
(5) items receiving the highest vote being the recommendations of the work- 
group. 

Reports 

At this point in the session, one reporter will be selected. The reporter 
will prepare transparencies and report from them to the General Assembly. 

A-4.2 



Session Two and Three 

Times will be adjusted for the previous activities in Sessions Two and 
Three. Following the preliminary vote further discussion will be per- 
mitted and reconsideration of the priorities in order. 

If this occurs, a second and final vote will be necessary. 

A Group Reporter will be likewise selected to render the Session Two and 
Three reports. 

Workgroup Report Session 

Facilitators will have five (5) minutes to present the group report. 

Each subsequent group should build upon the foundation established by 
the first group. In addition to adding its problems and solutions, it 
can modify, refine or resequence the work of the previous group. 

In summary, the process will provide five (5) major problem areas, and 
solutions for each topic area. 

In the third series, each workgroup should select five (5) solutions and 
reduce them to statements of approximately thirty (30) words. It should 
also prioritize each of these solutions from one (1) to five (5). 

Lobbying 

If the topic of major concern to a participant has been drastically modi- 
fled or dropped altogether, participants still have a chance to get their 
views heard. They should locate a group member for the next session which 
will discuss the topic and lobby their concern. 



A-4.3 



A- 5 CONFE RENCE PRIO R ITIE S 

As the conclusion of the reports and recommendations of the Session Three 
Groups to the entire assembly, each member was asked to select from the 
recommendations presented the five (5) most important items to them. 

Once selected, each member was given 100 points to be assigned in in- 
crements of ten (10) to their five (5) items. 

The vote of the group was tallied and is listed as part of their report. 



A-5.1 



CONFERENCE PRIORITIES 



NUMBER 

1. PROBLEM: 
SOLUTIONS 



POINTS 



NFA/State relationship in the area of Program Development. 



875 



Adoption of a Task Force report with application to Resident 
and Field. Greatest priority because of: 

* Need to bridge communication gap. 

* Need to eliminate redundancy. 

* Need for NFA to be a central clearinghouse and focal point. 



2. PROBLEM: 



SOLUTIONS 



Admissions - There is no clear-cut relationship between State 465 
Directors and NFA student selection and admissions process. 

* Develop student selection criteria in cooperation with and 
input from states . 

* NFA must be consistent in enforcement of admissions criteria. 

* NFA to provide State Directors with list of names of can- 
didates tentatively accepted for courses. 



3. PROBLEM: There is a lack of a national examination system to evaluate 430 

candidates for the vai^ious ilational Standards. 

SOLUTIONS: * That the NFA develop a bank of questions. 

* Have a computer generated examination from NFA covering 
each subject area. 

* Validate the examinations. 



4. PROBLEM: 



SOLUTIONS 



Need to identify the responsibilities/role of all agencies, 

Communication links between agencies. 

Probl em of turf. 

FEMA phi losophy. 

National state training priorities. 

* Support of governor. Statf 

* Ad hoc committee. ^ 'j^ 
^ h.M.sl.tion LOCAL 

* lederal support. 



360 



national 
regionAl 



A-5.2 



5. PROBLEM: State Directors do not have an opportunity to meet and 355 

exchange concerns as frequently as needed. 

SOLUTIONS: 1. Conduct regional and annual State Directors meetings. 

2. Involve metres in regional State Directors meetings. 

3. Needs assessment by NFA. 

6. PROBLEM: Available technologies are not being utilized to exchange 330 

information between NFA and State Directors/State Directors 
and State Directors. 

SOLUTION:. * Group teleconferencing through central computer network 
(assistance from NFA to establish network specifications 
and to implement - to include hardware necessary for each 
state), "electronic mail" 

7. PROBLEM: Communications - There is a need for consistent, regular 320 

input and feedback system between NFA and State Directors. 

SOLUTIONS: * State Directors input into development of agendas. 

* More systematic meetings with State Directors, frequently 
and foremat. 

* Print-out of students attending NFA, status, courses at- 
tended and date of courses. 

8. PROBLEM: Misunderstanding the roles and goals between FEMA and SFT. 250 

SOLUTION: * Communication should increase in both directions. FEMA - 
States. Regional seminars, FEMA awareness seminars and 
mutual interchange. 

9. PROBLEM: Adjunct Faculty - There is a need to establish an Adjunct 230 

Faculty selection process to assure demonstrated professional 
expertise and instructional ability. 

SOLUTIONS: * Involve State Directors in screening and selection process. 

* State Directors should receive timely notification of 
faculty selection and scheduling. 



A-5.3 



* ELIMINATE BIDDING PROCESS . 

10. PROBLEM: Insufficient funds, in a majority of states, to sup- 190 

port hand-off programs. 

SOLUTIONS: State solutions: 

* charge fee 

* re-allocation of resources 
Federal solutions: 

* Feds provide student manuals 

* Feds provide grants 

* electronic delivery (teleconference, tapes, etc..) 

11. PROBLEM: NFA/FEMA is not providing resources which they are in 185 

a position to provide to state fire training agencies. 

SOLUTION: * Establish a resource dissemination system (on Pub Ed 
Model) for fire training. Resources - make available: 

1) audio visual materials from resource course 

2) research paper from Executive Development III 

3) research papers by others 

4) hand-off courses (more) 

12. PROBLEM: There is not an adequate inventory of information re- 170 

sources. 

SOLUTION: * Compile complete inventory of all available resources 
and develop a means of updating the material. 

MINORITY REPORT: 

Accessing information about students attending Resident 
Courses and Field Programs in other states. 

SOLUTION: 

Acceptance notification to states before delivery of course 
on campus. Transcript system such as print-Quts of student 
rosters by state - quarterly is recommended. 



A-5.4 



13. PROBLEM: States need help in developing i^ own resources in 

order to enhance the delivery of hand-off courses. 
CTrain-The-Trainer) 

SOLUTIONS: * NFA should assist in the development of state in- 
structors. 

* Start-up grants to give states time to absorb the 
impact. 

14. PROBLEM: NFA has not made Resident Course materials available 

to the states, 

SOLUTIONS: * Develop courses in modules for easy access and use 

* Provide to states by special request: 

1) outlines 

2) visuals 



165 



15. PROBLEM: Instructional Materials - National Professional Quali- 135 

fications Standards are not consistently being used in 
course materials development. 

SOLUTION: * Current and future NFA instructional materials should 
be cross-referenced to the National Standard. 

16. PROBLEM: There does not exist a standard course of study for 60 

evaluators in the NPQS. 

SOLUTIONS: * NFA, in cooperation with state programs, develop a 
Train-The-Trainer hand-off package for evaluators. 

* NPQ Board work with NFA and state programs in iden- 
tifying the needs for a Train-The-Trainer package. 

17. PROBLEM: FEMA has programs for which they need delivery systems. 60 

Fire Service Training delivery systems can hel^ - if: 

SOLUTIONS: * Contract approach. FEMA: 

1) provide guidelines 

2) policies 

3) resources 

* Contract keeps local and state politics out. 

A. 5-5 



18. PROBLEM: State fire training reluctant to interact with FEMA. 

1. State fire training gets lost in FEMA. 

2. What is partnership FEMA/SFT? 

SOLUTIONS: * Focus should be on NFA/SFT relationship, not FEMA/SFT. 
* In effect, SET UP CHAIN OF COMMAND. 



40 



19. PROBLEM: Train-The-Trainer - There is a lack of input from State 40 
Training Directors in planning process for development of 
hand-off courses. 

SOLUTIONS: * Involve State Directors in needs assessment for the 
development of hand-off courses. 
* Conduct Train-The-Trainer courses for hand-off packages 
at the Regional /State levels. 



A-5.6 



WORKGROUP ASSIGNMENTS 







SESSION I 




TOPIC I 




TOPIC II 




EVANS 




AMABILI 




MONIGOLD 




HOEY 




PAGE 




MCDONAGH 




ALBER 




ANDERSON 




BRUMMER 




BURKE 




GROSSBACH 




HAGLER 




JONES 




LEWAND 




PERKINS 




PRENDERGAST 




STARK 




STEVENS 




WARREN 




WEEDON 






TOPIC IV 




TOPIC V 




SAND FORD 




OPENING 




TRENCH 




WESTHOFF 




BACA 




WILLIS 




DREW 




BOUGHTON 




GILMAN 




FARMER 




HAGEVIG 




GOODWIN 




MCGARY 




HOGLUND 




SHAW 




MCLAUGHLIN 




THOMAS 




SKYLANDER 
TYREE 



TOPIC III 

ROYER 

THOMPSON 

AYERS 

FRAGA 

HERBERT 

MCCLURE 

SANBORN 

STEPHAN 

WHARTON 



A-5.1 



SESSION 11 



TOPIC I 



TOPIC II 



TOPIC III 



GRENING 

TRENCH 

AYERS 

ANDERSON 

FARMER 

OILMAN 

MCCLURE 

WILLIS 

SHAW 

WHARTON 



EVANS 

WESTHOFF 

BRUMMER 

GOODWIN 

HAGEVIG 

SANBORN 

SKLANDER 

THOMAS 

THOMAS 



BROUGHTON 

MONIGOLD 

PRENDERGAST 

BACA 

BRUBE 

GROSSBACH 

HOGLUND 

MCGARY 

STARK 

TYREE 



TOPIC IV 



TOPIC V 



ROYER 

HOEY 

PAGE 

AMABILI 

FRAGA 

HAGLER 

JONES 

MCLAUGHLIN 

STEVENS 

WARREN 



SANDFORD 

THOMPSON 

MCDONAGH 

ALBER 

DREW 

HEBERT 

LEWAND 

PERKINS 

STEPHAN 

WEEDON 



A-6.2 



SESSION III 



TOPIC I 



TOPIC II 



TOPIC III 



ROYER 

HOEY 

WEEDON 

BACA 

FRAGA 

HAGLER 

LEWAND 

SANDFORD 

STEVENS 

TYREE 



MCGARY 

THOMPSON 

PAGE 

BOUGHTON 

DREW 

HEBERT 

MCCLURE 

MCLAUGHLIN 

STEPHAN 

WARREN 



GRENING 

TRENCH 

MCDONAGH 

ALBER 

FARMER 

GILMAN 

JONES 

PERKINS 

SHAW 

WILLIS 



TOPIC IV 



TOPIC V 



EVANS 

WESTHOFF 

AYERS 

ANDERSON 

BRUMMER 

HOGLUND 

PRENDERGAST 

SKLANDER 

WHARTON 

GOODWIN 



AMABILI 

MONIGOLD 

BURKE 

GROSSBACH 

HAGEVIG 

SANBORN 

STARK 

THOMAS 



A-6.3